Evolution

[stroke]

In response to all this life-on-other planet nonsense, you have to remember… who dictates that life on other planets has to follow our requirements for living? Why would other organisms on any other planets need oxygen? Water? The fact that we are basing it all off of ourselves is probably what makes most people find it impossible. And the truth is, we don't know, and we probably won't for a long time, or never will. So arguing is useless, there is no proof that goes either way — no definitive proof, at least. However, currently evolution is the more evidentially supported idea; there has yet to be solid, non-religious "proof" of gods/a god.

[QuietOC]

So arguing is useless, there is no proof that goes either way — no definitive proof, at least. However, currently evolution is the more evidentially supported idea; there has yet to be solid, non-religious "proof" of gods/a god.

There is different evidence for both.

 

Evolution - fossil/gene record(s) and some minor genetic variation today.

God - theological tradition(s), subjective experience of God's imminence today.

 

Belief in God is like belief in any other person. Belief in evolution is belief in a particular explanatory theory/model. One can't hypothesize God anymore than you can hypothesize George Washington. One doesn't have faith that Evolution is going to save you because it tells you it will. The Christian God at least exists as a person in a story. Evolution is not a person, its hardly even a single definably explanatory model (not like E=mc^2). It is a somewhat vague collection of principles that seem to fit what little we know about biology. There is so little content in the idea of evolution that there is little reason not to believe in it.

 

Now there is a great deal of content in the development of the character of God in the Bible. It should be very easy for anyone to falsify the Christian ideas about God if they meet a different divinity. People who claim not to have met God (atheists) are going to have some trouble convincing those who have that who they have met doesn't exist.

 

And science has trouble proving that we can believe that other people exist. It is probably the same problem as creating artificial intelligence. They don't know what makes people people, but everyone knows a person (another mind) when they met one. I am not saying our knowledge of other minds requires minds to be anything un- or super-natural. Love and faithfulness are probably very natural, material things that may someday be understandable in the Grand Theory of Everything.

[Maxintosh]

People who claim not to have met God (atheists) are going to have some trouble convinced those who have that who they have met doesn't exist.

Not really. Neurologist can artificially induce a religious experience.

there has yet to be solid, non-religious "proof" of gods/a god.

I believe that music is proof of God.

[QuietOC]

Not really. Neurologist can artificially induce a religious experience.

So, neurologists can influence what people experience. If true, then the possibility exists that God can play at neurology himself. God should be more effective than human neurologists at causing religious experiences of himself. I'm not sure I see a difference between human neurologist and magicians. Certainly it is possible to fool people into false beliefs. The mere ability to do so doesn't negate all beliefs (unless you're thoroughly post-modern, I guess.)

 

There are also a minority of biologists who have been unconvinced of the explanatory power of evolution. Maybe neurologists should help the evolutionary biologists out and cause more widespread belief in evolution!

[Maxintosh]

the possibility exists that God can play at neurology himself.

I'm pretty sure that most people know that God has that ability in his toolkit, but that only shows that God wants some people to believe in him, and not others. Not exactly helping your argument

 

I'm not sure I see a difference between human neurologist and magicians.

Non sequitur. Sounds more like a personal issue.

[homer007]

people you have to remember that its called theory of evolution, not "fact of evolution", its still a theory and most of the scientist today reject it, isn't this enough to rule it out!!!

[Paranoid Marvin]

Ok, a lot of people here don't understand quite what theory means.

 

It goes something like this:

 

Scientist observes something happening. (eg, Issac Newton looks at moon and wonders why it stays up there)

Scientist comes up with theory. (Newton's laws)

Scientist compares expected observation as suggested by theory with real life (Any 13 yr old science work)

When expected observation matches observation, theory is accepted as probable.

Other scientists try out theory, to check if they get the same results.

 

Therefore:

 

Evolution is something we have observed.

The theory of evolution was made up to explain it.

The theory of evolution is widely accepted as fact, however, due to time contrainst, we will never be able to prove it as definitively as newton's laws, therefore, it shall remain a theory for much longer.

 

That does not mean it is wrong. Nor does it mean the theory of intelligent design is right, or any more credible.

 

Hope that clears things up

[homer007]

It is not widely accepted as a fact!! thats my point many scientist have written books against it!!! Link!!

[Paranoid Marvin]

It is not widely accepted as a fact!! thats my point many scientist have written books against it!!! Link!!

 

Far more widely accepted, and observed than the theory of intelligent design.

 

Want proof that evolution is happening? Catch a cold.

[QuietOC]

Far more widely accepted, and observed than the theory of intelligent design.

Neither evolution nor I.D. are theories.

 

I have to admit I find this whole "controversy" about biology pretty boring. Now our understanding of intellegence and design is actually an interesting topic, but I don't see much reason to bring up biology in that discussion.

[Maxintosh]

Hope that clears things up

Don't count on it LOL

[iSkylla]

Drake Equation.

[maclinux]

The problem is that many Christians REALLY REALLY REALLY want to take the bible literally, rather than taking it metaphorically, the problem with this is that in order to hold onto their belief that the bible is literal, they must utterly reject evolution, or risk picking and choosing which parts of the bible are literal and which parts are metaphorical, and if they jump to that, EVERYTHING is up for debate. They don't want that, so they hold steadfast to their "belief" which is in actuality, a delusion. (again I am not bashing Christians, only people who take all of this scripture LITERALLY)

They take literally only the parts that they find useful for them...just read the other topic about the Sermon of the Mountain. Not taking many of those teachings literally.

[Maxintosh]

They take literally only the parts that they find useful for them

...which is most of it

[maclinux]

...which is most of it

 

Still its not all of the Bible, so... wich ones are to be taken literally and wich ones not? What teachings are to be obeyed and wich ones not?

[Paranoid Marvin]

Still its not all of the Bible, so... wich ones are to be taken literally and wich ones not? What teachings are to be obeyed and wich ones not?

 

Well, it's pretty obvious now that the beginning of Genesis, for example, cannot be taken literally

[QuietOC]

Well, it's pretty obvious now that the beginning of Genesis, for example, cannot be taken literally

If you take Genesis seriously, you would want to find out how it is meaning. Assuming it is either literal or metaphorical is most likely going to be wrong. Once you've studied it and found out how it is meaning, you can evaluate whether you accept that meaning or not. The "literal" interpretation of a earthly week of 24 hour days of creation is inconsistent with the actual literal content. The author(s) evidently had a different means of meaning--unless you want to say what they wrote was just meaningless.

 

Genesis was written at least 2400 years ago, and likely created from sources much older than that. What we read in English translations hopefully conveys most of the meaning properly, but regardless of that we don't have the cultural assumptions of its original audience. Genesis did and does mean something, and we can't just make it mean what we want or how we individually read our English version of it. The fact that some modern religious people think it means something it specifically can't mean doesn't detract from what it does mean.

 

Since I am interested in what it means--I am in the process of learning how it means. A small part of that will be learning Hebrew, though I can somewhat read the Greek translation made about 2300 years ago.

[Maxintosh]

What teachings are to be obeyed and wich ones not?

They're not 'teachings' - they're just stories. You could learn just as much by over analyzing peter pan.

[QuietOC]

They're not 'teachings' - they're just stories. You could learn just as much by over analyzing peter pan.

 

Mr. Barrie did want to teach something in Peter Pan. There might be some simularities between a modern play and Genesis. Genesis has a story and/or a bunch of stories compiled together. There are not just a single work of fiction like Peter Pan by an individual author. Genesis contains the pre-written historical accounts of the ancient near east peoples. There is reason to believe they are much more historical than the late invention of Peter Pan by Mr. Barrie.

[Paranoid Marvin]

However, Genesis does not depict the formation of the earth or the universe accurately.

 

Firstly, it says the earth was created on the first day (in some form or other). It does also say the heavens were made on that day.

The stars, however, were not created until the 3rd day (or is it the forth? I don't quite get the structure of those verses).

 

Whether or not you see day as a period of time or a literal day, it is wrong.

It is known, without doubt that the stars are older than the earth.

 

Therefore, Genesis, at least in the most modern version, is wrong.

[killbot1000]

However, Genesis does not depict the formation of the earth or the universe accurately.

 

Firstly, it says the earth was created on the first day (in some form or other). It does also say the heavens were made on that day.

The stars, however, were not created until the 3rd day (or is it the forth? I don't quite get the structure of those verses).

 

Whether or not you see day as a period of time or a literal day, it is wrong.

It is known, without doubt that the stars are older than the earth.

 

Therefore, Genesis, at least in the most modern version, is wrong.

 

 

Seriously! I have no idea why people continue to cling to this story as if its fact. Absolutely astonishing.

[QuietOC]

However, Genesis does not depict the formation of the earth or the universe accurately.

I find what it says is amazingly consistent with current tentative theories. Yes, it is profoundly limited in our eyes, by the culture in which it was expressed.

 

14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

The author(s) of Genesis trashes astrology and worship of sun and moon. It is almost like these ancient tribal herdsmen were anti-religion or something. I dare say their contemporaries likely called them atheists. Perhaps the point of Genesis 1 is that whatever exists in the universe no matter how majestic or awe inspiring is not divine.  

[Maxintosh]

Mr. Barrie did want to teach something in Peter Pan.

 

I knew I should have gone with Alice in Wonderland

 

Seriously, if there is such a thing as intelligent life from other planets, I certainly hope that if they ever make contact with humans that they don't talk to a religious fundamentalist ...or our planet is doomed

[QuietOC]

Seriously, if there is such a thing as intelligent life from other planets, I certainly hope that if they ever make contact with humans that they don't talk to a religious fundamentalist ...or our planet is doomed

So, you think religious fundamentalism is unique to our planet?

 

What if some alien religious fundamentalists make contact with us?

 

Though there might be some evidence that certain religious views tend to hamper technological development. For example the relative technical superiority of muslim nations during the middle ages, which has now been reversed. Regardless, it would still be possible for the technology to be obtained and then a different religious view take hold.

[killbot1000]

Religion was an incredibly important force in getting us to where we needed to be (The Modern Age). However now that we are here religion should be fading away, it serves no point in a modern, scientific society. We cant be messing around with nuclear weapons and religious belief at the same time, we will end up with a fanatic willing to use them for the sake of religious belief. Without religious belief in a modern world, we are forced to question the actions of our leaders based on real-life explanations and justifications, not made up ones and warped logic. This will hold leaders accountable for their actions by the people.

 

However ignorance is bliss I suppose.